PROGRESS IN BIOLOGICAL INQUIRIES, 1926 a79 
reduction purposes. This law was put through several years ago at the 
request of the sardine canners, who were alarmed at the wholesale destruction 
of sardines in reduction plants. ° Hach cannery has its by-products plant, and 
when, after the armistice, the sardine market collapsed and the market fur 
fish oil and meal remained high, the canners naturally wished to tide over 
the. depression by using a liberal amount of sardines in their reduction plants. 
A law was put through by agreement between the fish and game commissior - 
and the canners which permitted the canners to use 25 per cent of the sardines 
for the manufacture of oil and meal At first we had difficulty in preventing 
the canners from using more for reduction than the law allowed, but as we 
gained in experience and understanding of the intricate ways of the sardine- 
canning business we were better able to hold them down. We had many legal 
battles, all quite friendly ones, and succeeded in adding some very interesting 
eourt decisions to the State’s fisheries history. The law was amended several 
times and will be changed again at this present session of the legislature. The 
enforcement of this act, together with all the conferences and correspondence, 
takes a great deal of our time and energy. We hope to get a law so simple 
this time that there will be no argument about it. 
One of the latest things we have had to contend with is the floating reduction 
plant which purposed to operate outside the 3-mile limit and receive fish caught 
outside the 3-mile limit. The first one of these plants, a large concrete ship, 
was anchored about 4 miles from shore, but within Monterey Bay. When two 
purse-seine boats delivered sardines (some 90 tons) to this plant, we placed 
the fishermen under arrest, seized the two nets, valued at $4,000 each, and 
got a temporary injunction from the superior court of Santa Cruz County to 
prevent the company from operating the plant. They went to the Federal court 
for an injunction and damages against the commission and its officers. The 
Federal court decided that Monterey Bay was State territory. The company 
then appealed to the State supreme court and we are still awaiting a decision 
from that court. In the meantime, this plant moved down the coast and 
anchored off Santa Barbara, and at about the same time another and larger 
floating reduction plant, which had outfitted at Oakland, moved down to the 
same place after losing a suit in the superior court of Alameda County to enjoin 
the commission from interfering with their operations.. With our patrol boats 
constantly on guard the fishermen were afraid to fish for these plants and 
one of them has given up and returned to port. The other is again asking 
for an injunction in the Los Angeles courts. 
This illustrates a very interesting situation. The State’s jurisdiction ends 
at the 3-mile limit, except possibly in bays in California. In some of our fisheries 
all of the fish are caught outside the 3-mile limit. In others, a large proportion 
are caught outside of that limit. Seventy-five per cent of the salmon caught 
by trolling off the coast of California are from outside the 3-mile limit. We 
have suspected that many of the salmon caught off the northern coast of Cali- 
fornia are from Oregon and Washington. Recent tagging experiments show 
that some of the salmon from the Sacremento River are caught by trollers 
off the coast of British Columbia. California fishermen go into the waters of 
Mexico for a part of their fish, on which Mexico attempts to collect an exhorbi- 
tant tax. Our problems have grown until they extend beyond the jurisdiction 
of the State. 
This situation can be met in part by international treaties through the aid 
of our own Government, but we need also some sort of cooperation between 
States, as well—some plan whereby the States can look after their own local 
affairs but be under some sort of supervision by the central Government so 
that there will be coordinated control of the fisheries common to several States. 
Under the international fisheries treaty between the United States and Mexico 
we are trying to work out a plan under which the two Governments and the 
State of California can cooperate in the case of California’s fisheries. Possibly 
this will work out as an example of how the State and the Government can 
cooperate. 
Mr. Hicerns. I should like to ask Mr. Scofield if he considers 
the plan of fishery administration, as worked out in California, 
applicable to other States on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, and if 
the urge to conduct the scientific work necessary to put such a system 
into operation can come from the outside, such as from the Federal 
Government, the Bureau of Fisheries, or if it must come from the 
industries within these States ? 
= 
